Circumcision

[fls]

As ever, Beth, I like and admire your humour and logical ability to be able to puncture a balloon of non-sequitur pretensiousness so aptly.

Man, did I ever read that wrong the first time through.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This thread is a perfect example of why there will never be a group of any size called 'sceptics'.

Goodnight.

 

[Gurdur]

Man, did I ever read that wrong the first time through.

As ever, I am totally unsurprised.

 

[fls]

As ever, I am totally unsurprised.

It was funny both times, but in totally different ways. I liked it.

Linda

 

[Gurdur]

As amused as I am (and I am, I am) by all these gallivantings, since I deeply love watching this thread for all its attendent ironies, I will point out something here in small little words for the comprehension-challenged.

When discussing the ethicalities of a particular medical procedure, only what is relevant to those medical ethics is to the point. Nothing else is.

When Ivor or LoneW want medicos to change the world and do or not do medical procedures according to what Ivor or LoneW think should be done to control various religious groups, they are making a medically unethical demand. It is not up to medicine to control society.

Male circumcision is a medical procedure. It is judged by medical ethics. Medical ethics are finely honed and always researched more and discussed more worldwide; it is a very essential part of modern medicine. It is, like all ethics and all (so sorry, fls!) philosophy open to debate, however its bases, premises and implementations are public and publically accessible.

Final decsions by medicos on whether to perform medical male circumcision are based on medical grounds (including medical ethics ones). The criteria used have been made clear thousands of times.

Any such demand by Ivor or LoneW is deeply irrelevant, non sequitur, and also rather deeply anti-democratic, relying as it does on using medicos to Stalinistically impose a particular regime in line with Ivor's and LoneW's own prejudices.

Now I shall return to happily watching this thread. It does give me a fair few laughs from time to time. Thank-you for your attention.

 

[Lonewulf]

Bleh, I'm going to give this conversation a few hours before I come back. I'm willing to listen to Beth's logical and rational reasons to assume that a child has faith. I'm not willing to see someone's posts mocking me after he's quoted again and again by people in this thread. That's not why I entered this debate, so ******** could take it over and mock whoever disagrees with them because they dare to speak out against "status quo".

But I'm sure the status quo is "reasonable". Beth said so, so it must be! And I'm "pretentious" for suggesting otherwise.

 

[Gurdur]

It was funny both times, but in totally different ways. I liked it.

I happen to be a far more multiplex person than your prejudices lead you to believe, and being an Australian, I have a sense of humour. But none of my multiplexity includes "holism", ditto as with before, merely standard, solid and advanced academic philosophy, including ethics. Sorry if that sounds pretentious, it was merely hard work for many years. Cheers. BTW, do try not to miss the post I made just above your last. Of course, all I did in that other post was to reinforce more clearly a point you had already made, after Beth jumped in to make it clearer than you while using humour to do it with, but I feel that poetic justice is the best form of justice, so I simply like to sit and watch in this thread.

 

[fls]

As amused as I am (and I am, I am) by all these gallivantings, since I deeply love watching this thread for all its attendent ironies, I will point out something here in small little words for the comprehension-challenged.

When discussing the ethicalities of a particular medical procedure, only what is relevant to those medical ethics is to the point. Nothing else is.

When Ivor or LoneW want medicos to change the world and do or not do medical procedures according to what Ivor or LoneW think should be done to control various religious groups, they are making a medically unethical demand. It is not up to medicine to control society.

Male circumcision is a medical procedure. It is judged by medical ethics. Medical ethics are finely honed and always researched more and discussed more worldwide; it is a very essential part of modern medicine. It is, like all ethics and all (so sorry, fls!)

I would have been so disappointed if you'd been able to resist.

philosophy open to debate, however its bases, premises and implementations are public and publically accessible.

Final decsions by medicos on whether to perform medical male circumcision are based on medical grounds (including medical ethics ones). The criteria used have been made clear thousands of times.

Any such demand by Ivor or LoneW is deeply irrelevant, non sequitur, and also rather deeply anti-democratic, relying as it does on using medicos to Stalinistically impose a particular regime in line with Ivor's and LoneW's own prejudices.

Now I shall return to happily watching this thread. It does give me a fair few laughs from time to time. Thank-you for your attention.

You know what would really piss me off? If this was the time it actually worked.

Linda

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Opps, I thought this was a poll.

 

[Skepticybe]

To Skepticybe: Tell me one - just one! - relevant thing that I cannot or have not done or been able to do, having been circumcised. Just one. IF you can do that, I'll reconsider; if not, I'll stand by my opinion that a properly circumcised penis is unimpaired.

Functional damage goes far beyond what one can or cannot do. For example, someone who loses taste sensitivity can still eat the same food as you or I, he'll just get less enjoyment from it. He may even be able to use his sense of smell to identify food. A real loss of functionality, but without losing the ability to perform almost any given task.

Besides circumcision causing diminished sensitivity of the glans, something you can't do is activate the erogonous nerves whose endings have been lopped off and tossed in the trash.

I have all the same equipment you do, and I am physically able to experience every sexual sensation you can. However, I can experience sexual sensations that you cannot because you're missing the part of the sexual organ that would produce those sensations. Just as you can distinguish between a touch to your forefinger and a touch to your palm, I can distinguish between the sensations produced by our "common" equipment and the sensations produced by the foreskin. And incidentally, those sensations are extremely pleasurable.

 

[Beth]

I meant every single person in the majority.

That's 300,000,000 people in the U.S. >50% = 150,000,001 people. I'll get working on that.

Okay. You can start with me and Linda. After all, we're not exactly 'pro-circumcision' (having declined to circumcise our own sons), rather we are pro-choice regarding circumcision. If you could convince us, it would be a sign of strong arguments in your favor.

No, I'm not assuming it is the same, just that they are both sets of beliefs. Why should assuming a child has no faith be preferred to assuming the child has the parent's faith?

Because one is actually honest and logical.

I see two sets of competing beliefs ("parent's faith" vs "no faith"). I do not see "no faith" as being inherently more logical or honest than "parent's faith", only different.

This has nothing to do with what I believe. And that's your problem -- you're lacing this as if I'm some naturalist evil person that's trying to get people to believe in what I do. I find that dishonest. I am not enforcing my personal belief. Get that into your head, or I will cease discussion, as I loathe people that twist what I say. Saying that someone has no faith is not the same as proclaiming them as anything other than simply someone that has no faith. It does not assume moralistic, philosophical, or religious arguments or beliefs. It says what a child is: A being that is incapable of having religion.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to twist your words, but expressing my opinion of your position. 'No faith' is a set of beliefs about god(s). It has deep philosophical implications whether you recognize them or not. And it is your belief position. Thus, my assessment is that you want to assign your belief position of "no faith" the status of 'default' for all children without acknowledging the inherent implications and philosophical foundations of your belief position. I am pointing out that those implications exist because the fact that they exist is important to my position on the matter.

If you consider your infant to be Christian, then I consider my cat to worship FSM. It's just as logical, rational, and comedic.

Well, I didn't consider my infants to be Christian, because their parents were not. However, if you want to consider your infant (or cat) to be a worshipper of the FSM, that's perfectly all right with me. It is not my business what religion you choose.

To bring "evidence", I need to counteract the argument that children should be assumed to have the same religion as the parents. What's the validation for that belief? Why are children considered to be able to choose a religion?

Children don't choose a religion. Adults choose a religion. Children are assumed to have the religion of their parents until they are adults. The validation for that assumption? The fact that that's the way all societies (at least as far as I know) work. If you want that to change, the burden is on you to justify change. The status quo is justified by being the status quo and without good reason to change, it won't.

So far, the only argument seems to be "because we said so". Or "because it's a societal standard". Or because "it's reasonable".

Yes. It's a reasonable societal standard is a pretty good argument, although not an invincible one. But you have yet to provide any solid counterarguments for change. Until then, a reasonable societal standard is sufficient to justify the status quo.

How can I reason you out of a decision you haven't even reasoned yourself into?

With good sound logic and verifiable objective evidence. You might give it a try.

You were the one that brought up the word "abuse". Another example of dishonesty, or am I misremembering my own argument?

No, I wasn't being dishonest though I don't recall if you used that word. You did (I think) refer to Dawkins argument on the subject. He claims that labeling of children with a religion is abuse in "The God Delusion". Do you disagree with that? I do, but I thought you were supporting his argument.

 

[Lonewulf]

Okay. You can start with me and Linda. After all, we're not exactly 'pro-circumcision' (having declined to circumcise our own sons), rather we are pro-choice regarding circumcision. If you could convince us, it would be a sign of strong arguments in your favor.

Okay, let's see.

I see two sets of competing beliefs ("parent's faith" vs "no faith"). I do not see "no faith" as being inherently more logical or honest than "parent's faith", only different.

I fail to see why.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to twist your words, but expressing my opinion of your position. 'No faith' is a set of beliefs about god(s).

Actually, it means a lack of faith. The fact that you keep twisting it into being a "belief system" either suggest dishonesty or an unwillingness to accept that it is possible to not have faith.

If you think a rock is an atheist, you are silly. If you think a baby is a Christian, you are also silly.

What are the beliefs of cats and dogs, pray tell?

It has deep philosophical implications whether you recognize them or not.

I'm sure babies spend all night thinking on the deep philosophical ramifications of having no faith.

Then they cry for their bottle.

And it is your belief position.

Yes, I do not believe in deities. But I'm talking about a total lack of faith. I'm also talking about a total lack of philosophy -- and I have philosophy. I'm talking about a total lack of moral arguments -- and I have moral arguments.

Babies have none of that. And you have yet to provide evidence that they do.

How can you think that me saying that a baby is philosophy-less would be "subjecting him to my beliefs"? Dear lord...

Thus, my assessment is that you want to assign your belief position of "no faith" the status of 'default' for all children without acknowledging the inherent implications and philosophical foundations of your belief position. I am pointing out that those implications exist because the fact that they exist is important to my position on the matter.

Ookay, not sure what you mean by important to your position.

Well, I didn't consider my infants to be Christian, because their parents were not. However, if you want to consider your infant (or cat) to be a worshipper of the FSM, that's perfectly all right with me. It is not my business what religion you choose.

Wow, you really do find this to be logical. I'm aghast.

Children don't choose a religion. Adults choose a religion.

Adults choose a religion, children don't. Okay, there we agree.

Children are assumed to have the religion of their parents until they are adults. The validation for that assumption? The fact that that's the way all societies (at least as far as I know) work.

Wow. I am really convinced. I'll stop all argument here. Societies work that way, therefore it's right, logical, rational, and reasonable.

If you want that to change, the burden is on you to justify change.

So let me get this straight. I have to make an argument against an argument that has no rational validation to it whatsoever?

And you find it hard to find my arguments convincing?

And you expect me to be able to convince you, when you already admit you have no rational reason to support such a thing?

The status quo is justified by being the status quo and without good reason to change, it won't.
Yes. It's a reasonable societal standard is a pretty good argument, although not an invincible one.

But there's no evidence that it's a reasonable societal standard!

But you have yet to provide any solid counterarguments for change.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what the proper counterargument for, "I just say it's good, so it's good" is.

With good sound logic and verifiable objective evidence. You might give it a try.

Sound logic:

BABIES CAN'T HAVE FAITH! They don't have the minds for it!

Let's go about proving it, now, m'kay?

No, I wasn't being dishonest though I don't recall if you used that word. You did (I think) refer to Dawkins argument on the subject. He claims that labeling of children with a religion is abuse in "The God Delusion". Do you disagree with that? I do, but I thought you were supporting his argument.

Ah yes, the old "quoting him out of context" trick. Okay.




Since are *are* talking about circumcision still:

So, then, why can't a religious man who believes that God told him to tattoo a picture of Jesus' face, not be able to put it on his kid's ass at the age of 8? As far as I know, it's illegal to put a tattoo on a kid below the age of 18.

FASCISM! FASCISM! STALINISM! =D

 

[Beth]

I fail to see why.

I'm sorry you fail to see why. You see your beliefs as inherently honest and logical. Okay. So does everybody else. I fail to see why your belief regarding god(s) ("No faith") is the best choice as the default assumption for all children in our society. If you can't explain why your suggestion is a better assumption than the status quo, it's not a particularly convincing argument for other people to change their opinion.

Actually, it means a lack of faith. The fact that you keep twisting it into being a "belief system" either suggest dishonesty or an unwillingness to accept that it is possible to not have faith.

No. I understand that people don't have faith. But I consider "no faith" to be a belief system. That you don't recognize it as such doesn't mean that I don't. If you want to convince other people of the rightness of your position, you'll have to deal with that perception.

If you think a rock is an atheist, you are silly. If you think a baby is a Christian, you are also silly.

Many people have thought me silly. Doesn't bother me. Doesn't shake my conviction that Christian is the best default assumption for the religion of a baby of Christian parents. If you want me to reconsider that opinion, you'll have to answer a few questions such as: Why is the assumption of "no faith" a better default assumption? Who is better off as a result of making that assumption rather than the assumption of "parent's faith"? Why are they better off? How is our mutual society improved by changing the default assumption to one of "no faith" from that of "parent's faith"? What are the advantages of changing the default assumption regarding the faith of infants and children? I won't ask you to list the disadvantages. I can do that.

Yes, I do not believe in deities. But I'm talking about a total lack of faith. I'm also talking about a total lack of philosophy -- and I have philosophy. I'm talking about a total lack of moral arguments -- and I have moral arguments.

Babies have none of that. And you have yet to provide evidence that they do.

Nor will I. That isn't the claim I'm making. When you keep asking for evidence for positions I don't hold does raise my opinion of your arguments or persuade me that I am wrong and you are right.

Wow, you really do find this to be logical. I'm aghast.

Be aghast all you like; I consider your cat's religion to be your business, not mine. Why should I feel differently? Why should it be my business what religion you choose to impose on your cat or your business what religion other people impose on their children? As long as they aren't abusing their children and raise them to be productive citizens who contribute as best they can to our joint society, why justification do you offer for why we should assume their children have "no faith" rather than their "parent's faith".

Adults choose a religion, children don't. Okay, there we agree.

Nice to agree on something .

Wow. I am really convinced. I'll stop all argument here. Societies work that way, therefore it's right, logical, rational, and reasonable.

So let me get this straight. I have to make an argument against an argument that has no rational validation to it whatsoever?

You have to make an argument that the change you propose is better than the status quo. Complaining that the status quo isn't rational isn't an argument for change. It's just whining about the way things are. Could things be better? Most certainly. Is your suggestion going to make things better? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't convinced me of that...yet.

And you find it hard to find my arguments convincing?

Yes.

And you expect me to be able to convince you, when you already admit you have no rational reason to support such a thing?

I have done no such thing. Supporting the status quo because it has worked for all of recorded human history seems a very rational reason for me. All you have to do is convince me that your suggestion will lead to a better society. You could do through logical argument and objective verifiable evidence. So far, I have yet to see anything to support your suggested change but personal value judgements regarding the value of religion and the harm of circumcision. You're entitled to your value judgements, but they aren't a convincing reason to alter my own value judgements.

But there's no evidence that it's a reasonable societal standard!

Oh? You don't consider something having been part of human society for all of recorded history to be a reasonable societal standard? The vast majority of human being in our society (and likely every other society) consider it to be a reasonable societal standard. I think that counts as evidence that "parent's religion" is a reasonable default assumption for infants. What is your criteria for a reasonable societal standard in that regard?

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what the proper counterargument for, "I just say it's good, so it's good" is.

You might try: I don't think it's good because ... and list the reasons you think it isn't a good idea. You could then listen to my counterarguments and explain how my concerns are addressed with your suggestion. So far, you're pretty good at listing out the problems you see with the status quo, but not so good at addressing the problems that seem to me to be inherent in the changes you're suggesting.

Sound logic:

BABIES CAN'T HAVE FAITH! They don't have the minds for it!

Let's go about proving it, now, m'kay?

The problem with this is that it is irrelevant to my position. I agree with this premise, so proclaiming that babies can't actually chose their faith doesn't move me to change my opinion because I already agree with you on that point. They can't choose to be vegetarians either. Where we disagree is on what the best default assumption for children too young to know what faith is. I think the best default assumption is "parent's faith", which is the current default assumption of not just our society, but all human societies AFAIK. If you want to convince me with sound logic, explain to me why and how our society would improve if we were to make this change of default assumption.

 

[Southwind17]

I would generally place religion under social issues (considering circumcision as strengthening the Jewish religion, for example).

OK, back on track. So why do you consider circumcision as strengthening the Jewish religion? What do you believe would happen if the practice stopped? It's certainly not necessary to 'strengthen' many other religions, or 'groups' of people!

Naming can be used as a way to carry on traditions and indicate family connections. It's a simple way to indicate membership in a group ("the Snugglefrass family") or interconnectedness that would be lost if the name was changed.

That's all very interesting Linda, but you STILL haven't directed readers to where I disagreed with naming. Could you please do so, just for the record?

Incidentally, I was alluding more to the given name than the family name, but I don't think it matters. If an informed adult is given the choice: Either keep your family name so that you may 'carry on your traditions' and 'indicate your family connections' or select a different name that, for whatever reason(s) you as an informed adult, see fit, why should that person not be entitled to exercise that choice freely?

Let me give an example. Let's say there are two community leagues and league A (unbeknownst to them) has a coach who is a pedophile on one of the teams. It is eventually brought to light, the pedophile is tried and convicted, a study is done of the coaching protocol and measures are put into place to make it harder for a pedophile to be hired as a coach or to act on their impulses, and easier for children to report it. In league B, none of these measures are in place. I would call league A stronger.

And so would I. But, I would also call League A better off than it otherwise would be if the paedophile was identified, tried and conviceted, even if nothing more was done.

The second part of my answer refers back to the idea of unintended consequences. Without pedophiles will we be less vigilant in watching over our children (the idea of protecting them from predators drives some of our actions) and expose them to a different, and potentially more harmful, risk? (As an example)

That's a self-defeating argument Linda. You're effectively saying that it's better to have paedophiles roaming the community to keep us mindful of the risk, and hence vigilant, than eliminate the risk, whereby we can then enjoy life unhindered. You're saying that paedophilia is the lesser of two necessary evils, but the other, more malicious, evil is just a figment of your imagination. Hey, but let's not run that theoretical risk. Let's continue to tolerate the paedophiles! Hey, better still, lets legalise paedophilia and encourage it, afterall, just think how that might detract evil people from perpetrating even worse actions! (as an example)

Rats.

Yes, that's what I think too, to the quote you posted. Do you have a point to make, other than seemingly demonstrating that, once again, you've completely lost the plot?

I don't think it's up to me.

Neither do I, but that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether you think it seems more reasonable.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Beth, I'll ask you again:

Have you ever seen a medical infant circumcision performed without anesthetic?

ETA2:

Can you concieve of ANY fact that would make you oppose non-therapeutic circumcision?

What other ritual practices should physicians be able to offer as services?

After all, as Linda has pointed out, it isn't just the physical health of the child that a physician is supposed to be concerned with, but the mental and social health too. So using that 'logic', ritual scarring should be on that list, along with amputations of other non-essential body parts. The default position is to assume that the child has the same beliefs as the parents, isn't it? As LossLeader would say, "What the parents want is what the child wants."

And in reply to Gurdur:

I don't want Linda "to change the world". What I want is for her to agree that when the physician is looking at a perfectly healthy infant, there is no way a reasonable ethical system can allow surgery without first assuming malevolence toward the child* by the parents if the procedure is not carried out.

A physician's only authority over the child (independent of what the parents request them to, or not to do) is to treat that child for disease and deformity, or provide reasonable prophylactic measures, such as the standard vaccinations. They are not there to perform and reinforce social customs such as non-therapeutic circumcision.

*By this I mean making the child pay emotionally or physically for the fact their wishes were not carried out by a member of a secular profession.

ETA: I've just realized something: If Gurdur is commenting on my posts, that means I'm back off his ignore list.

 

[fls]

OK, back on track. So why do you consider circumcision as strengthening the Jewish religion? What do you believe would happen if the practice stopped? It's certainly not necessary to 'strengthen' many other religions, or 'groups' of people!

The first two questions I would have to leave to experts on the Jewish faith. Other religions or groups of people have their own rituals. There are certainly lots of examples of body modification.

That's all very interesting Linda, but you STILL haven't directed readers to where I disagreed with naming. Could you please do so, just for the record?

It seems like you don't agree that a name has enough importance that it shouldn't be changed lightly.

And so would I. But, I would also call League A better off than it otherwise would be if the paedophile was identified, tried and conviceted, even if nothing more was done.

Okay.

That's a self-defeating argument Linda. You're effectively saying that it's better to have paedophiles roaming the community to keep us mindful of the risk, and hence vigilant, than eliminate the risk, whereby we can then enjoy life unhindered. You're saying that paedophilia is the lesser of two necessary evils, but the other, more malicious, evil is just a figment of your imagination. Hey, but let's not run that theoretical risk. Let's continue to tolerate the paedophiles! Hey, better still, lets legalise paedophilia and encourage it, afterall, just think how that might detract evil people from perpetrating even worse actions! (as an example)

I think things through differently than you.

Yes, that's what I think too, to the quote you posted. Do you have a point to make, other than seemingly demonstrating that, once again, you've completely lost the plot?

No, your response did nothing to change that.

Neither do I, but that's not what I asked you. I asked you whether you think it seems more reasonable.

Yes.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

Oh? You don't consider something having been part of human society for all of recorded history to be a reasonable societal standard?

Yes.

Next?

The vast majority of human being in our society (and likely every other society) consider it to be a reasonable societal standard.

Argument from Popularity. Fallacy.

I think that counts as evidence that "parent's religion" is a reasonable default assumption for infants. What is your criteria for a reasonable societal standard in that regard?

If it stands up to rational or logical argument.

For instance:

A child cannot choose it's religion. You admit it, but you don't act like it, or you don't care when religion is forced on them (once more, freedom of religion for everyone except children).

A free society in which a child is able to choose their own religion when old enough to think about it is a good one. I think we can both agree on that, as we don't force religion on people that are old enough to be "responsible for themselves"... in Germany, you can change your religion at the age of 12.

On the other hand, before that, you can justify doing whatever you want to a child because somehow you assume that they believe in Christ or whatever -- including brutally tearing off a piece of their penis because your God gets kicks out of it.

I have yet to see what benefit there is with children being forced into a religious belief that they aren't able to accept. So so far we have some societal standard that is decided arbitrarily that has no real evidence of being beneficial, just that "it's been around, so it MUST be good", as if that's some kind of logical argument. Not sure why I should find that convincing, one way or the other.

As for who's better off: The child is. They will be better able to make critical thinking skills in a society that desperately needs critical thinking, if they are given reason to actually choose their religion for themselves instead of being beaten, threatened, or disowned because their parents don't like when their child suddenly "comes out" that he doesn't believe in God or Christ, even though he went to church all his life and got a piece ripped off of his penis as part of some religious ritual.

I also think that religion should be taught in high school or middle school, objectively and giving time to ALL religions and religious arguments (including agnostic and atheist arguments), for people to be able to see what other religions are, and to clear up any misconceptions as to what those religions are about. This would include the more mainstream religions at first, with minor religions on the periphery. I'd prefer if all religions got covered, but I know that's probably impossible.

Of course, I would rather such a class be more used for historical and philosophical contexts.

 

[Southwind17]

The first two questions I would have to leave to experts on the Jewish faith.

You would? But you're the one who drew the link between circumcision and group 'strengthening':

I would generally place religion under social issues (considering circumcision as strengthening the Jewish religion, for example).

Surely that link is based on at least a notion?

Other religions or groups of people have their own rituals.

I agree, which just goes to show how nominal each individual ritual is, including circumcision. Just like different religions themselves, I suppose. Do you agree?

There are certainly lots of examples of body modification.

In civilized western society?

It seems like you don't agree that a name has enough importance that it shouldn't be changed lightly.

Who am I disagreeing with? I certainly don't believe that a name has any intrinsic value. It's just a combination of letters, afterall, used primarily for identification and convenience. Yes, a name might have conotations, but they only exist in the mind. Whatever other value or importance a name might have to anybody else I maintain that any person who has had a name imposed upon them should have the right to change it freely. Do you strongly disagree?

I think things through differently than you.

Evidently. You often express your views and opinions differently, too, in a way that usually leaves one wondering what you mean. Have you not detected that?

No, your response did nothing to change that.

So why post a spuriously abbreviated quote? What was that meant to achieve?

 

[Lonewulf]

For the record, I'm only against forced body modification.

Personally, I want to see more consensual body modification in the world. I find people like Stalking Cat to be fascinating.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I agree, which just goes to show how nominal each individual ritual is, including circumcision.

<snip>

Circumcision and other forms of forced genital mutilation of children is so common among different cultures that it is not a defining feature of any of them. The only thing that tends to change from culture to culture is the justification given for the mutilation and the level of technology used to accomplish it.